GFTESS,
Your # 86 contains some good, thought provoking questions.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What do you think empowers the second part to supersede the first part?
I don't think that the second part supersedes the first part.
How do you define a religion and what in the world do you think "... free exercise thereof" means?
Yes, for sure, defining terms is very important.
By Religion, I mean the act by which we render to God both privately as individuals and publicly as social beings, the honor, gratitude, obedience and worship due to Him, and in the way prescribed by Him.
The dictionary definition of "religion" is 1. Belief in God or gods. 2. Worship of God or gods. 3. A particular system of religious belief and worship.
I would say my definition reflects #3 of the dictionary definition. My particular system of religious belief is the way prescribed by God, namely Catholicism. For the Muslim, it would be Islam; for the Protestant, that would be any one of a thousand of sects; for the Secularist and Atheist, that would be the practice of Secular or Atheistic Humanism; their god is man. For the Satanist, their god is the devil.
Now, on to defining "religious freedom" as per the First Amendment...
Religion, the free exercise thereof--might mean the physical freedom to exercise (to practice ) your religion (whatever that particular system of religious belief it might be) unencumbered by the Federal Government. This would mean the government can't pass a law and you can't be arrested and thrown in jail for going to church, temple or mosque. That happens under Communism or other totalitarian States.
OR Religion, the free exercise thereof ---might mean that a person is conscienciously free to choose and practice any religion of their choice.
Or it could be both.
AND THUS THE CONUNDRUM that you bring up in your next question when you ask,
Do you know what this would mean to a fundamental Muslim if religiously unlimited and legal?
As I see it, by Religion, the free exercise thereof, the Founders were encouraging religious pluralism and (possibly unintentionally) were fostering Indifferentism (the notion that all religions with their competing claims are all equally valid and should be freely chosen and practiced).
I think it's a huge error that will eventually bring America's demise...the culture's going to collapse because from the notion of religious freedom is that there should be no religious freedom, at least when it comes to some religions.
How far are you willing to stretch this nonsense in your view and those of other religions?
What do you expect, I'm a big mouth, but only one vote.
If you cannot understand that a society must set limits on the radical elements of every organization, geese, then I just don't know what to say???
And in this day and age under the dictatorship of moral relativism, what is and who are the "radical elements"?